Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will Apple make another Xserve?
- Thread starter wellander1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple has no software that'd take advantage of server hardware at this point, and the Server app is pretty thoroughly gutted. It's extremely unlikely you'll ever see anything like the Xserve again.
Agree with above post, the server app is not even a shadow of it's previous self. I tried sticking around with it but eventually moved all of my servers to some form of Linux and am actually much happier with them overall.
Sure there are a couple aspects the old server app had but the trade-offs for me are much more in favor of the Linux offerings currently.
My actual OLD OLD Xserve is still sitting in a corner of the server closet and will stay there until I am gone. I don't think I'll ever sell it myself.
Sure there are a couple aspects the old server app had but the trade-offs for me are much more in favor of the Linux offerings currently.
My actual OLD OLD Xserve is still sitting in a corner of the server closet and will stay there until I am gone. I don't think I'll ever sell it myself.
There really was never a dedicated server OS. Basically the only thing you paid for was a management GUI in the form of the Server App and Admin Tools. Most of the underlying software was there in the client OS.
Apple, and the industry as a whole, has really moved on... Virtualization, cloud and container based applications serve the vast majority of needs and do it at much better efficiencies of scale and cost. Bare metal servers were replaced with virtualization which is now shifting to container platforms like Kubernetes. For everything else, pick your favorite Linux flavor.
Any features that were uniquely Apple are still in the Server App or have been moved to the core OS, like Caching Server and Time Machine server.
Technically....they do now. The new Mac Pro can be had rack mountable.
Not a server in the classic sense (traditional services: email, web, file server, directory, etc). But if one really wanted to, it could be used as such. Seems like it is geared specifically to content creation.
Not a server in the classic sense (traditional services: email, web, file server, directory, etc). But if one really wanted to, it could be used as such. Seems like it is geared specifically to content creation.
No amount of hoping because Tim Cook doesn’t care about the Server space anymore!
Caring isn't the issue. There is little money in local servers or services anymore. That ship sailed a decade ago.
And the players in that arena are driving the cost down. Great for consumers, who don't need nor will spend for enterprise gear. Having run Xserves from the very first G4 to the last Xeon...for SMB customers, I would rather run Synology or something similar.
Even in the enterprise space, MS volume must be down. The last serious on-site need is for a directory server, and AD has been the only real option...but others are on the horizon. Once that market opens up to cloud...Amazon or Google or whoever...we will see a further reduction of on-site enterprise hardware demand.
The only thing that seems like a possibility is if Apple cracked the current power/heat/cooling model wide open with something new like the A-series chips to substantially increase computing density and bring down cloud computing cost. But even with the ability, they would have to commit long term to massive software development to compete or partner with all the heavy hitters: MS, Linux flavors, VM Ware, Docker, Oracle, etc.
How many Apple stockholders would really support that?
From a different perspective, virtualization needs somewhere to run too, and it would have been nice to have a non-Windows contender for easily-configured servers for people who are afraid of the command line. On the other hand there exists no sub-$4500 Apple alternative to my ~$2500 Linux ”everything”-server. You get quite a few months of hosting for the price difference up to a comparable Apple machine.
I’m also if the mind to think with the rise of smart NAS we don’t need smart servers anymore in home!
I was one of the people that emailed Steve Jobs and suggested, strongly, that Apple buy Sun. They would have had a pretty robust server catalog, and a lot of experience in OS design, and it would have been a win-win, but they chose to let Oracle rape Sun and watch it die. Apple could have spun off a lot of the Sun software business and made back some of the acquisition cost. I don't know why Apple would have been so hesitant to grab Sun. *shrug* Sun had quite a 'religious' following from my experiences at a big 10(11) school.
[automerge]1585489634[/automerge]
More reliable, IF you have a good internet connection. One client we had decided to 'upgrade' to their vertical app vendor's 'Cloud Package'. They promised 'on heard of access', 'power and flexibility'. They were situated on the far end of the local internet providers runs in the area. One day, a backhoe hit their main feed into that area. Down went their internet. The provider, apparently because there weren't that many people effected, and the backhoe work wasn't done, dragged their feet getting the connection repaired. So much for 'cloud' being better. They also suffered drops often as well. But that backhoe outage lasted days, and they couldn't work. They couldn't enter orders, check on orders, check inventory. They changed back to the traditional software with local database support. Once bitten... (They sent a computer from the office to the home of their accountant, and she was able to work from home on the second day of the outage. Points for creativity)
Yeah, the 'cloud' is great, but it shifts methods and opportunities for failure to other points in the chain. Something as simple as an internet outage had a massive effect on their business, and the software provider just didn't have any sympathy or accountability (obviously).
[automerge]1585489634[/automerge]
More reliable, IF you have a good internet connection. One client we had decided to 'upgrade' to their vertical app vendor's 'Cloud Package'. They promised 'on heard of access', 'power and flexibility'. They were situated on the far end of the local internet providers runs in the area. One day, a backhoe hit their main feed into that area. Down went their internet. The provider, apparently because there weren't that many people effected, and the backhoe work wasn't done, dragged their feet getting the connection repaired. So much for 'cloud' being better. They also suffered drops often as well. But that backhoe outage lasted days, and they couldn't work. They couldn't enter orders, check on orders, check inventory. They changed back to the traditional software with local database support. Once bitten... (They sent a computer from the office to the home of their accountant, and she was able to work from home on the second day of the outage. Points for creativity)
Yeah, the 'cloud' is great, but it shifts methods and opportunities for failure to other points in the chain. Something as simple as an internet outage had a massive effect on their business, and the software provider just didn't have any sympathy or accountability (obviously).
Last edited: